This chapter defines the different terms “miscarriage of justice,” “wrongful convictions” and “proven innocence.” Although these terms are often used interchangeably with differences ascribed to customs and semantics, there are critical differences between them. Miscarriages of justice is the broadest term. In some definitions, it can include any violation of rights. In the criminal context, miscarriages of justice can include unfair trials and unwarranted pre-trial detentions. A wrongful conviction is a narrower term that requires a conviction that is subsequently overturned. As measured in recently developed registries, wrongful convictions are convictions overturned on the basis of new evidence relevant to guilt or innocence. Finally, the narrowest term is proven innocence. This approach is most popular in the United States, where it is also called factual or actual innocence. It was pioneered by Edwin Borchard and used by innocence projects. Formalistic arguments that proven innocence does not violate the presumption of innocence are critiqued. Consistent with Guido Calabresi’s and Phillip Bobbitt’s tragic choice theory, the use of the different terms differs over time and place, and they are used to ration justice.

The rise of remote work and work-from-home, accelerated by the COVID pandemic, is reshaping and disrupting the social dimension of work—that is, the incidence of cooperation, sociability, and solidarity (as well as conflict) among co-workers. Most discussion of the trend toward remote work centers naturally on its impact on firms (especially in terms of productivity) or workers (especially in terms of work-life balance). This essay focuses instead on how remote work and work-from-home might affect the social underpinnings of political life outside the workplace. The quotidian experience of working together—traditionally, face-to-face, and often across salient lines of social division—generates weak and strong interpersonal bonds that can strengthen the foundations of a democratic society. The cumulative societal benefits of co-worker interactions are at risk if remote work thins out and weakens workplace ties. That is especially likely because those societal benefits are “public goods” and spillover benefits of workplace interactions. Those social benefits may thus be neglected by analysts and observers. This essay develops that thesis and then reflects briefly on whether and how the conventional institutional arsenal of labor and employment law might be deployed to increase the production of such public goods.

How does law travel in Inter-Asia? This chapter focuses on traveling law as an empirical event and does so to reflect on prevailing theories in comparative law that explain how law moves from one jurisdiction to another. The dominant paradigm in comparative law for traveling law is legal transplants, a concept that has generated a sprawling literature. The point of this chapter is not to say that Inter-Asia is aberrational regarding legal transplants; instead, the perspective is to use the Inter-Asian Law material, and specifically the fraught movements of Chinese law in Inter-Asia, to critically reflect on comparative law conventions. Whereas Inter-Asia is embedded within global trade and migration routes, it has also been populated by outsiders – pirates or jihadis – whose participation within those circuits creates contrast and distance, elements that are prerequisites to critical reflection. Chinese law may also be such an outsider that permits reflecting on taken-for-granted paths.

This chapter examines four common immediate causes of wrongful convictions as confirmed by recent data from registries. They are mistaken eyewitness identification, incentivized and lying witnesses, false confessions and faulty forensics. Commonly used remedies designed to prevent these immediate causes are examined from a legal process perspective, which stresses the different remedies that can be implemented by courts, legislatures and through executive measures. The latter includes reforms that police and forensic science providers can take themselves to decrease the risk of causing wrongful convictions. The most effective strategies often involve all three branches of government. At the same time, many jurisdictions are reluctant to adopt optimal reform measures because of concerns about preventing the use of evidence that is frequently used to achieve convictions. For example, the use of jailhouse informants has not been banned despite their frequent role in wrongful convictions. This insight suggests that reforms to prevent wrongful conviction cannot ignore their perceived or likely impact on conviction rates.

Chapter 3 further refines the criteria for when failure-based arguments might be justified. Drawing insights from the early UN Human Rights Commission’s focus on addressing specific rights violations, along with literature on structural reform litigation and emergencies in public law, the chapter underscores the importance of proportionality. This involves weighing the necessity, functionality, and potential costs of interventions. The chapter concludes with a contemporary example — the Horizon scandal and the UK Parliament’s legislative response overturning wrongful convictions of subpostmasters—illustrating how this reasoning works in practice.

This chapter argues that Article 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) does not require proof of innocence. At the same time, it only requires compensation for some wrongful convictions and may require updating especially for false guilty pleas. International criminal courts have a potential to be hybrids of adversarial and inquisitorial systems that provide optimal protection against wrongful convictions. Unfortunately, this has often not been the case, raising the risk of false guilty pleas. Nevertheless, the International Criminal Court has made improvements compared to previous courts. Except in Australia, the right to appeal under Article 14(5) of the ICCPR is underdeveloped. South Africa’s approach to appeals is especially restrictive. Proposals to recognize a new international right to claim and prove innocence are critically examined. Article 9(5) provides a broad but often underenforced right to compensation for unlawful detention. Compensation should not, in accordance with international law remedial principles, be limited to monetary compensation. Compensation is not sufficient because it only subjects the human rights violated by miscarriages of justice to liability rules and does not ensure their non-repetition.

This chapter examines the main challenges posed by remote working from the perspective of occupational health and safety protection. Methodologically, the chapter utilizes a multi-level perspective and also focuses on how the temporal and spatial breadth of remote work affect health and safety at work and its regulations. The chapter analyzes the problem of applying the current concepts of effective working time and rest time to the new activity times that arise in remote work. The study also examines the problems that arise regarding controlling and recording working time in remote work, as well as the legal limits of the new forms of control used by companies. The need to articulate specific forms of digital disconnection and to introduce online working time as a psychosocial risk factor is addressed. The chapter also examines the implications of remote work for the management of occupational risk prevention. In addition to how occupational risk prevention planning is carried out, special attention is paid to the new occupational risks that may appear in the digital sphere, such as cyber-bullying, but also the increase in more traditional psychosocial risks, and the difficulties that arise in achieving an effective assessment of these risks.